Dataset Information

Effects of restrictive red blood cell transfusion on the prognoses of adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE:Restrictive red blood cell transfusion strategies remain controversial in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. We performed a meta-analysis to assess the prognostic benefits of restrictive red blood cell transfusion strategies in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. METHODS:We identified randomized clinical trials through the 9th of December 2017 that investigated a restrictive red blood cell transfusion strategy versus a liberal transfusion strategy in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Individual patient data from each study were collected. Meta-analyses were performed for the primary and secondary outcomes. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. A trial sequential analysis (TSA)-adjusted random-effects model was used to pool the results from the included studies for the primary outcomes. RESULTS:Seven trials involving a total of 8886 patients were included. The TSA evaluations suggested that this meta-analysis could draw firm negative results, and the data were sufficient. There was no evidence that the risk of 30-day mortality differed between the patients assigned to a restrictive blood cell transfusion strategy and a liberal transfusion strategy (odds ratio (OR) 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 1.24; p?=?0.87). Furthermore, the study suggested that the restrictive transfusion strategy was not associated with significant increases in pulmonary morbidity (OR 1.09; 95% CI 0.88 to 1.34; p?=?0.44), postoperative infection (OR 1.11; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.3; p?=?0.58), acute kidney injury (OR 1.03; 95% CI 0.92 to 1.14; p?=?0.71), acute myocardial infarction (OR 1.01; 95% CI 0.80 to 1.27; p?=?0.78), or cerebrovascular accidents (OR 0.97; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.30; p?=?0.66). CONCLUSIONS:Our meta-analysis demonstrates that the restrictive red blood cell transfusion strategy was not inferior to the liberal strategy with respect to 30-day mortality, pulmonary morbidity, postoperative infection, cerebrovascular accidents, acute kidney injury, or acute myocardial infarction, and fewer red blood cells were transfused.

SUBMITTER: Chen QH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5977455 | biostudies-literature | 2018 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effects of restrictive red blood cell transfusion on the prognoses of adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Chen Qi-Hong QH Wang Hua-Ling HL Liu Lei L Shao Jun J Yu Jiangqian J Zheng Rui-Qiang RQ

Critical care (London, England) 20180531 1

<h4>Purpose</h4>Restrictive red blood cell transfusion strategies remain controversial in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. We performed a meta-analysis to assess the prognostic benefits of restrictive red blood cell transfusion strategies in patients undergoing cardiac surgery.<h4>Methods</h4>We identified randomized clinical trials through the 9th of December 2017 that investigated a restrictive red blood cell transfusion strategy versus a liberal transfusion strategy in patients undergoing ...[more]

PMID: 29848364

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background:When safe to do so, avoiding blood transfusions in cardiac surgery can avoid the risk of transfusion-related infections and other complications while protecting a scarce resource and reducing costs. This protocol describes a kidney substudy of the Transfusion Requirements in Cardiac Surgery III (TRICS-III) trial, a multinational noninferiority randomized controlled trial to determine whether the risk of major clinical outcomes in patients undergoing planned cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass is no greater with a restrictive versus liberal approach to red blood cell transfusion. Objective:The objective of this substudy is to determine whether the risk of acute kidney injury is no greater with a restrictive versus liberal approach to red blood cell transfusion, and whether this holds true in patients with and without preexisting chronic kidney disease. Design and Setting:Multinational noninferiority randomized controlled trial conducted in 73 centers in 19 countries (2014-2017). Patients:Patients (~4800) undergoing planned cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. Measurements:The primary outcome of this substudy is perioperative acute kidney injury, defined as an acute rise in serum creatinine from the preoperative value (obtained in the 30-day period before surgery), where an acute rise is defined as ?26.5 ?mol/L in the first 48 hours after surgery or ?50% in the first 7 days after surgery. Methods:We will report the absolute risk difference in acute kidney injury and the 95% confidence interval. We will repeat the primary analysis using alternative definitions of acute kidney injury, including staging definitions, and will examine effect modification by preexisting chronic kidney disease (defined as a preoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] <60 mL/min/1.73 m2). Limitations:It is not possible to blind patients or providers to the intervention; however, objective measures will be used to assess outcomes, and outcome assessors will be blinded to the intervention assignment. Results:Substudy results will be reported by the year 2018. Conclusions:This substudy will provide generalizable estimates of the risk of acute kidney injury of a restrictive versus liberal approach to red blood cell transfusion in the presence of anemia during cardiac surgery done with cardiopulmonary bypass. Trial Registration:www.clinicaltrials.gov; clinical trial registration number NCT 02042898.

Project description:In recent years, due to the shortage of blood products, some extensive burn patients were forced to adopt an "ultra-restrictive" transfusion strategy, in which the hemoglobin levels of RBC transfusion thresholds were < 7 g/dl or even < 6 g/dl. This study investigated the prognostic impacts of ultra-restrictive RBC transfusion in extensive burn patients. This retrospective multicenter cohort study recruited extensive burns (total body surface area ≥ 50%) from three hospitals in Eastern China between 1 January 2016 and 30 June 2022. Patients were divided into an ultra-restrictive transfusion group and a restrictive transfusion group depending on whether they received timely RBC transfusion at a hemoglobin level < 7 g/dl. 1:1 ratio propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to balance selection bias. Modified Poisson regression and linear regression were conducted for sensitive analysis. Subsequently, according to whether they received timely RBC transfusion at a hemoglobin level < 6 g/dl, patients in the ultra-restrictive transfusion group were divided into < 6 g/dl group and 6-7 g/dl group to further compare the prognostic outcomes. 271 eligible patients with extensive burns were included, of whom 107 patients were in the ultra-restrictive transfusion group and 164 patients were in the restrictive transfusion group. The ultra-restrictive transfusion group had a significantly lower RBC transfusion volume than the restrictive transfusion group (11.5 [5.5, 21.5] vs 17.3 [9.0, 32.5] units, p = 0.004). There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of in-hospital mortality, risk of infection, hospital length of stay, and wound healing time after PSM or multivariate adjustment (p > 0.05). Among the ultra-restrictive transfusion group, patients with RBC transfusion threshold < 6 g/dl had a significantly higher hospital mortality than 6-7 g/dl (53.1% vs 21.3%, p = 0.001). For extensive burn patients, no significant adverse effects of ultra-restrictive RBC transfusion were found in this study. When the blood supply is tight, it is acceptable to adopt an RBC transfusion threshold of < 7 g/dL but not < 6 g/dL.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the benefit and harm of restrictive versus liberal transfusion strategies to guide red blood cell transfusions.DesignSystematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses of randomised clinical trials.Data sourcesCochrane central register of controlled trials, SilverPlatter Medline (1950 to date), SilverPlatter Embase (1980 to date), and Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to present). Reference lists of identified trials and other systematic reviews were assessed, and authors and experts in transfusion were contacted to identify additional trials.Trial selectionPublished and unpublished randomised clinical trials that evaluated a restrictive compared with a liberal transfusion strategy in adults or children, irrespective of language, blinding procedure, publication status, or sample size.Data extractionTwo authors independently screened titles and abstracts of trials identified, and relevant trials were evaluated in full text for eligibility. Two reviewers then independently extracted data on methods, interventions, outcomes, and risk of bias from included trials. random effects models were used to estimate risk ratios and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals.Results31 trials totalling 9813 randomised patients were included. The proportion of patients receiving red blood cells (relative risk 0.54, 95% confidence interval 0.47 to 0.63, 8923 patients, 24 trials) and the number of red blood cell units transfused (mean difference -1.43, 95% confidence interval -2.01 to -0.86) were lower with the restrictive compared with liberal transfusion strategies. Restrictive compared with liberal transfusion strategies were not associated with risk of death (0.86, 0.74 to 1.01, 5707 patients, nine lower risk of bias trials), overall morbidity (0.98, 0.85 to 1.12, 4517 patients, six lower risk of bias trials), or fatal or non-fatal myocardial infarction (1.28, 0.66 to 2.49, 4730 patients, seven lower risk of bias trials). Results were not affected by the inclusion of trials with unclear or high risk of bias. Using trial sequential analyses on mortality and myocardial infarction, the required information size was not reached, but a 15% relative risk reduction or increase in overall morbidity with restrictive transfusion strategies could be excluded.ConclusionsCompared with liberal strategies, restrictive transfusion strategies were associated with a reduction in the number of red blood cell units transfused and number of patients being transfused, but mortality, overall morbidity, and myocardial infarction seemed to be unaltered. Restrictive transfusion strategies are safe in most clinical settings. Liberal transfusion strategies have not been shown to convey any benefit to patients.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42013004272.

Project description:BackgroundUlinastatin is a type of glycoprotein and a nonspecific wide-spectrum protease inhibitor like antifibrinolytic agent aprotinin. Whether Ulinastatin has similar beneficial effects on blood conservation in cardiac surgical patients as aprotinin remains undetermined. Therefore, a systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to evaluate the effects of Ulinastatin on perioperative bleeding and transfusion in patients who underwent cardiac surgery.MethodsElectronic databases were searched to identify all clinical trials comparing Ulinastatin with placebo/blank on postoperative bleeding and transfusion in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Primary outcomes included perioperative blood loss, blood transfusion, postoperative re-exploration for bleeding. Secondary outcomes include perioperative hemoglobin level, platelet counts and functions, coagulation tests, inflammatory cytokines level, and so on. For continuous variables, treatment effects were calculated as weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidential interval (CI). For dichotomous data, treatment effects were calculated as odds ratio and 95% CI. Statistical significance was defined as P < .05.ResultsOur search yielded 21 studies including 1310 patients, and 617 patients were allocated into Ulinastatin group and 693 into Control (placebo/blank) group. There was no significant difference in intraoperative bleeding volume, postoperative re-exploration for bleeding incidence, intraoperative red blood cell transfusion units, postoperative fresh frozen plasma transfusion volumes and platelet concentrates transfusion units between the 2 groups (all P > .05). Ulinastatin reduces postoperative bleeding (WMD = -0.73, 95% CI: -1.17 to -0.28, P = .001) and red blood cell (RBC) transfusion (WMD = -0.70, 95% CI: -1.26 to -0.14, P = .01), inhibits hyperfibrinolysis as manifested by lower level of postoperative D-dimer (WMD = -0.87, 95% CI: -1.34 to -0.39, P = .0003).ConclusionThis meta-analysis has found some evidence showing that Ulinastatin reduces postoperative bleeding and RBC transfusion in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. However, these findings should be interpreted rigorously. Further well-conducted trials are required to assess the blood-saving effects and mechanisms of Ulinastatin.

Dataset Information

Effects of restrictive red blood cell transfusion on the prognoses of adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Publications

Effects of restrictive red blood cell transfusion on the prognoses of adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets